See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/342431789

Zero-till drill for the establishment of mungbean and comparison of its

performance with the conventional method

Article · June 2020

DOI: 10.5455/JBAU.81033

CITATIONS READS

0 367

5 authors, including:

Rajesh Nandi
Bangladesh Agricultural University
15 PUBLICATIONS   41 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Bio-methane potential of different types of biomass View project

Green Energy Knowledge Hub View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Rajesh Nandi on 23 July 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 J Bangladesh Agril Univ 18(2): 509–515, 2020 https://doi.org/10.5455/JBAU.81033
ISSN 1810-3030 (Print) 2408-8684 (Online)
Journal of Bangladesh Agricultural University
Journal home page: http://baures.bau.edu.bd/jbau

Zero-till drill for the establishment of mungbean and comparison of its

performance with the conventional method
Md. Hamidul Islam1, Md. Shamshad Ansari1, Rajesh Nandi1, Md. Mosharraf Hossain1, Md. Enamul Haquee2
1
Department of Farm Power and Machinery, Bangladesh Agricultural University, Mymensingh 2202, Bangladesh
2
Agricultural Engineer, Department of Agricultural Extension (DAE), Khamarbari, Kurigram 5600, Bangladesh

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Article history: The conventional method of mungbean (Vigna radiata) cultivation is direct broadcasting involves land
Received: 08 January 2020 preparation and seeding which is laborious, time-consuming and cost-intensive. Conservation
Accepted: 23 April agriculture-based technologies are becoming increasingly popular among the farmers due to having
Published: 30 June 2020 early planting scope, the minimum cost of production, improving soil health and sustainable
environment. This study was conducted to evaluate the performance of a power tiller operated zero-till
Keywords: drill for the adoption in mungbean cultivation. Overall performance was evaluated based on seed rate,
Zero tillage, number of plants per unit area, number of pods per plant, number of seeds per pod and grain yield, net
Broadcasting, Reduced tillage, saving and benefit-cost ratio, and compared with the conventional method. Results showed that average
Conservation agriculture, seed rate was 30.0 kg/ha and 35.5 kg/ha for zero tillage and conventional method respectively, which
Zero-till drill indicates that 5.5 kg of seed per ha was saved with zero tillage system. Besides, zero tillage system
could maintain a uniform depth of planting with better seed-soil contact. The average number of plants,
Correspondence: pods per plant, seed per pods and yield per hectare were higher in zero tillage system compared to the
Md. Hamidul Islam conventional method. Mungbean yield under zero tillage system was 30.4% higher than the
: hamidfpm@bau.edu.bd conventional method. Furthermore, from an economic viewpoint, zero tillage system is suitable for
mungbean cultivation because it could save the production cost by 20.9% and increased net saving by
60.9% than the conventional method. Furthermore, a higher benefit-cost ratio was obtained from the
zero tillage system (BCR = 3.2) than the conventional system (BCR = 1.6) which indicates that zero
tillage system is profitable than the conventional method.
Copyright ©2020 by authors and BAURES. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International License (CC By 4.0).

Introduction disturbance, crop residue management and following

Tillage is the mechanical manipulation of soil to create a
favourable condition for seed and plants. Conventional
tillage methods have long resulted in exposed field
surface, decrease soil fertility, serious water loss and soil
erosion and increasingly deteriorating ecological
environment. To achieve sustainable development in
agriculture, it is time demand to promote the systematized
protective tillage techniques and implements for the
preservation of soil moisture suitable to the intensive
farming areas. Hatfield and Karlen (1992) reported that
the adoption of reduced tillage methods can offer
significant environmental benefits over conventional
tillage system.
Conservation agriculture-based tillage technologies like
zero tillage, reduced tillage, strip tillage and bed planting
are gaining popularity among the farmers due to having
distinct advantages over the conventional tillage.
According to Hobbs et al. (2008), conservation
agriculture-based tillage technology results in less soil
Cite this article
Islam, M.H., Ansari, M.S., Nandi, R., Hossain, M.M., Haquee, M.E. 2020. Zero-till drill for the establishment of mungbean and comparison
of its performance with the conventional method. Journal of Bangladesh Agricultural University, 18(2): 509–515.
https://doi.org/10.5455/JBAU.81033
beneficial crop rotation. Among the conservation
agriculture-based technologies, zero tillage is more
beneficial in terms of less soil degradation, enhancing
microbial activities, more efficient use of inputs and
improving soil fertility and sustainable environment
(Sharma et al., 2008; Kahloon et al. 2012). In zero tillage
system, the establishment of the crop is done in
previously unprepared soil by opening a narrow slot or
band only of sufficient width and depth to obtain proper
seed placing which reducing land preparation cost and
less soil disturbance due to reducing the number of tillage
operation and thus the number of tractor and tillage
implement trips over the soil (Qaisrani et al., 2014).
Besides, zero tillage system with residue management
helps in conserve soil moisture and a natural increase of
organic matter in topsoil (Derpsch et al., 2010).
Power tiller (two-wheel tractor) operated conservation
agriculture technologies have been developed by different
organizations among which zero tillage and strip tillage
technologies are more viable for dry soil. To evaluate the
Zero-till drill for the establishment of mungbean
field performance of developed conservation agriculture
technologies, different promotional activities are being
conducted in the farmer’s field in Bangladesh. Most of the
previous promotional activity was conducted under rice-
wheat or rice-maize cropping system. This research was
carried out to evaluate the performance of BARI
(Bangladesh Agricultural Research Institute) developed
power tiller operated zero-till drill for the establishment
of mungbean.
Mungbean is a leguminous crop which envisioned as the
best of all pulses from the nutritional viewpoint. Whole
mungbean seed contains 62.6% carbohydrate, 23.9%
protein, 4% minerals and 3% vitamins (USDA, 2018).
However, mungbean cultivation like other pulses is
decreasing due to less yield and higher production cost as
well as the expansion of boro rice cultivation area.
Though crop scientists are trying to increase the yield
through varietal development it is necessary to reduce
production cost through introduction of proper
management practice (Uddin et al., 2009). In Bangladesh,
mungbean is cultivated after T. Aman rice or wheat using
conventional tillage through manual broadcasting which
is laborious, time-consuming and cost extensive. Also,
planting of mungbean depends on the previous harvest
which often delayed due to unavoidable weather
condition. Thereby, reducing crop yield since timely
planting and harvesting are the key operations for
achieving the desired yield. Besides, long turn-around
time can be caused by excessive tillage, soil moisture
problems, shortage of animal or mechanical power for
ploughing and other farm jobs like threshing and
managing rice crop or wheat before preparing land for
mungbean cultivation. Erensten and Laxmi (2008)
reported that zero tillage system is appropriate for wheat
cultivation after rice in rice-wheat cropping system
1. Seedbox, 2. Fertilizer box, 3. Toolbar frame, 4. Chain and sprocket, 5. Seed tube, 6. A depth control device, 7. Furrow opener,
8. Press wheel, 9. Hitch plate, 10. Seed metering device
Fig. 1. An isometric view of zero-till drill machine (Ansari et al., 2016)
510
allowing earlier wheat planting, helping control the weed,
reducing production cost and saving water. Furthermore,
according to Naresh et al. (2013), the conversion of
conventional to zero tillage can result in higher bulk
density and infiltration and lower runoff compared to
conventional tillage. Therefore, the adoption of zero
tillage system for mungbean cultivation could help the
farmers to decrease production cost and increase net
saving. The specific objectives of this research are to
evaluate the field performance of power tiller operated
zero-till drill for the establishment of mungbean and
compare the field and economic performance of zero-till
drill with the conventional method.
Materials and Methods
Field tests were conducted at Bangladesh Agricultural
University Farm to evaluate the performance of a zero-till
drill for the establishment of mungbean. During planting
operation, the zero-till drill was attached with a 12 HP
Dongfeng power tiller which is very common in
Bangladesh to complete the planting operation.
Binamoog-5 was used as test variety of mungbean.
Planting depth and seed covering mechanism were kept
constant throughout the planting operation. Before
planting operation, a herbicide named “Roundup” was
applied to kill the existing weed at the rate of 100 ml in
10-litre water for 5 decimal lands.
Zero-till drill machine
An isometric diagram of BARI developed power tiller
operated zero-till drill is shown in Fig.1. Technical detail
of zero-till drill is given in Table 1. The overall
performance of the zero-till drill for the establishment
mungbean was also compared with the conventional
broadcasting system.
 Islam et al.
Table 1. Technical specification of zero-till drill used for the establishment of mungbean
Particulars Number Dimension (mm) Material
Hitch plate 1 255 × 230 & 130 × 135 MS steel
Toolbar frame 1 980 × 660 MS bar
Seedbox 1 810 × 210 × 180 Plain sheet
Fertilizer box 2 850 × 240 × 160 Plain sheet
Seed tube 4 100 × 170 × 90 Plastic
Furrow opener 4 233 × 125 Heavy flat bar
Press wheel 4 280 × 50 Rubber
Depth control devices 2 270 × 360 MS bar
Seed metering device 4 Flute type Moulded plastic
Power transmission system 1 Roller-420 Roller chain
Chain-Sprocket 2 22 and 19 teeth Steel
Clutch 1 dog clutch MS iron

Calibration of zero-till drill for seed rate
Before the actual planting operation, the zero-till drill was
calibrated for correct seed rate. During calibration for
seed rate, two-third of the seedbox was filled with seed
and transparent polythene bags were tagged with each of
the seed delivery tubes. After that zero-till drill was
operated on a pre-measured 20 m travel distance with a
sowing width of 80 cm. Then, seed collected in polythene
bags that passed through tubes were weighed and seed
rate was determined according to the equation (1) as
described by Michael and Ojah (1978). This procedure
was repeated by adjusting the seed metering device until
the desired seed rate obtained. The seed rate was kept at
30.0 kg/ha for zero-till drill.
10W
S  s ................................................ (1)
d A
m alternation pattern was used for sowing. For proper seed
Where,
Sd = Seed rate (kg/ha)
Ws = Total weight of seed (gm)
Am = Measured experimental area, m2
Land preparation
Land preparation was not required for the establishment
of mungbean under zero tillage system. However, land
preparation was a precondition for the cultivation of
mungbean in the conventional method. The land was
ploughed by 3 passes of power tiller followed by 2 passes
of laddering with straight alternation pattern. Land size of
11.20 decimals with 3 replication plots for each
cultivation method was prepared.
Fertilizer application
As mungbean is a leguminous crop which can store
nitrogen in its root zone from the air. So only TSP
fertilizer was applied at the rate of 100 kg/ha during
planting followed by the broadcasting method in both
zero-tillage system and conventional method.
Experimental procedure
During mungbean planting time, the average moisture
content of the soil for the top 50 mm was 25% (dry basis).
In the case of zero tillage system, the seed was applied in
an untilled previously harvested rice field. Straight
placement, the speed of operation was maintained at 2.5
km/hr. In the conventional system, both seed and fertilizer
were sown by manual broadcasting after the second pass
of ploughing followed by laddering. After
sowing/planting operation, all the cultural practices such
as fertilizer application, irrigation and plant protection
were done in all the plots as per the agronomical
requirement. A photographic view of mungbean
establishment using a zero-till drill and conventional
method were shown in Fig. 2.

(a) The conventional method of planting (b) Zero tillage system of planting
(Ansari et al., 2016)
Fig. 2. Photographic views of mungbean establishment in the field

511
Zero-till drill for the establishment of mungbean
Performance evaluating parameters
Overall performance of zero tillage and conventional
system in mungbean cultivation was evaluated based on-
field performance, yield and yield contributing
parameters and economic of performance.
Field performance
Field performance of zero-till drill was evaluated based
on field capacities, field efficiency and seed rate. Amount
of seed required per hectare area was calculated using
equation (1). And field capacities and field efficiency
were calculated using equation (2), (3) and (4) according
to Kepner et al. (1978).
SW
Theoretical field capacity (ha/hr)  ............... (2)
10
Area covered
Effective field capacity (ha/hr)  ...... (3)
Time required
Effective field capacity
Field capacity   100 ..... (4)
Theoretical field capacity
Where, S = Rated forward speed for zero-till drill,
(km/hr), W = Rated width of the machine (m)
Yield and yield contributing parameters
Yield and yield contributing parameters of mungbean
cultivation under zero tillage system and the conventional
method were evaluated based on the number of plants per
unit area, number of pods per plant, number of seeds per
pod and total grain yield per hectare.
Economic of Performance
Economic of performance of zero tillage system and
conventional method for mungbean cultivation was
evaluated based on the cost of mungbean establishment,
the total cost of production, total output, net saving and
benefit-cost ratio (BCR). In the case of zero tillage system,
mungbean establishment cost consists of seed cost and
planting cost, whereas the conventional method consists
of seed cost, land preparation and seeding cost.
Zero-till drill operational cost
Operating cost of zero-till drill consists of fixed cost like
depreciation cost, interest on investment, taxes, insurance
and shelter cost, and variable costs like repair and
maintenance cost, fuel cost, oil cost and labour cost. All
parameters of operational cost were calculated using the
standard formula (Hunt, 1973; Singh et al., 2016).
Fixed cost
Fixed cost is defined as one which remains unchanged
regardless of the level of output alters. In this research,
depreciation cost, interest on investment and shelter cost
was taken into account as fixed cost items. The straight-
line method of depreciation analysis was used to calculate
the depreciation cost of the zero-till drill as shown in
equation (5). Since the invested money cannot be used for
other interest making business, interest on investment was
512
take into account and was calculated using equation (6)
and shelter cost which is necessary to protect a machine
against adverse weather condition was calculated using
equation (7).
Depreciation cost 
 Tk.   P - S ............................. (5)

 hr  L  H
Interest on investment 
 Tk.    P  S   i ............ (6)
  
 hr   2  H
 Tk.   1% of P ................................... (7)
Shelter cost  
 hr  H
Where, P = purchase price of a zero-till drill (Tk.); S =
salvage value i.e. 10% of purchase price (Tk.); i =
interest rate i.e. 10%; L = life of zero-till drill, 7 year
H = annual use of zero-till drill, 300 hr
Variable cost
Variable cost is defined as one which changed with the
changing level of output. In this research repair and
maintenance cost and hiring cost for power tiller were
considered as a variable cost. Repair and maintenance
cost of the zero-till drill was calculated using equation (8)
and power tiller was hired during this experiment @ Tk.
150 per hour including fuel cost, oil cost and operator
cost.
Repair & Maintenance cost 
 Tk.   5% of P ........... (8)

 hr  H
Land preparation cost in conventional method was
calculated as 3 passes of ploughing by power tiller @ Tk.
1200 per pass plus 2 passes of laddering @ Tk. 400 per
pass.
Benefit-cost ratio (BCR)
It is a ratio used in a cost-benefit analysis to summarize
the overall relationship between the relative costs and
benefits of a proposed project. If a project has a BCR
greater than 1.0, the project is expected to deliver a
positive net present value to a firm and its investors. It
was calculated using equation (9).
Net saving from a project
BCR  ...................... (9)
The total cost of production
Results and Discussion
Field performance
Field performance of zero-till drill and conventional
method for the establishment of mungbean was evaluated
based on seed rate, a line to line spacing and depth of
planting. Parameters related to field performance of zero-
till drill and conventional methods are shown in Table 2.
From Table 2, it is observed that applied seed rate was
30.0 kg/ha in the zero-tillage system and 35.5 kg/ha in the
conventional method. Therefore, zero tillage system
required 5.5 kg less seed per hectare compare to the
 Islam et al.

(a) Conventional method (b) Zero tillage system

Fig. 3. A photographic view of the growing stage of Mungbean with different sowing method after 7 days from
seeding

Table 2. Field performance of different tillage method for mungbean establishment

Parameters Zero-till drill Conventional method
Line to line distance (cm) 20.0 Scattered
Depth of planting (cm) 3-3.5 Uneven
Effective field capacity (ha/hr) 0.12 0.18
Field efficiency (%) 73.35 78.5*
Seed rate (kg/ha) 30.0 35.5
Fuel consumption (l/ha) 9.30 18.2*
* Plowing operation

Table 3. Yield and yield contributing parameters of mungbean cultivated under different tillage system
Methods Ave. No. of Ave. No. of Ave. No. of Grain yield Yield increased
plants/m2 pods/plant seeds/pod (kg/ha) (%)
Zero-till drill 108 45 11.4 1247.5 30.4
Conventional (Broadcasting) 87 31 8.8 956.5 -

conventional system. Besides, a line to line space was 20
cm and the average width of opening slits was 2.0-3.0 cm
and depth of planting was 3.0-3.5 cm in zero tillage
system. The adjustment of row spacing between two
successive passes was maintained by operator skill and
experience. However, seed spacing and depth of seeding
were found uneven in the conventional method which is
due to broadcasting and laddering.
Yield and yield contributing parameters
A photographic view of the growing stage of mungbean
established by zero tillage system and the conventional
method is shown in Fig. 3. From the figure, it is observed
that vegetative growth of mungbean was better under zero
tillage system compared to the conventional method.
Yield and yield contributing parameters of mungbean
under zero tillage and the conventional method were
evaluated based on number of plants per unit area,
number of pods per plant, number of seeds per pod and
grain yield. Yield and yield contributing parameters of
mungbean cultivated under zero tillage and conventional
method are shown in Table 3.
Economic analysis
The economics of performance of zero tillage system and
conventional method for the establishment of mungbean
was evaluated based on the cost of planting, total cost of
513
production, total output, net saving and benefit-cost ratio
(BCR). Operating cost of the zero-till drill for the
establishment of mungbean was found Tk. 1515/ha as
shown in Table 4. The planting cost of mungbean
including seed cost under zero tillage and the
conventional method was Tk. 4515/ha and Tk. 8400/ha,
respectively (shown in Table 5). From Table 5, it is
observed that the establishment cost-saving for mungbean
under zero tillage system was Tk. 5485/ha (65.3%) over
the conventional method. This result is following Sindh
et al. (2007) who reported that the cost of establishment
of wheat under zero tillage system was about half of the
cost of the establishment using the conventional method.
Also, the total cultivation cost of mungbean under zero
tillage and conventional system were found Tk. 20715/ha
and Tk. 26200/ha, respectively, which indicates that
20.9% production cost was saved under zero tillage
system over the conventional method. Again, total
income from mungbean cultivation under zero tillage
system and conventional method were found Tk.
87325/ha and Tk.67585/ha, respectively. Further, net
saving from mungbean cultivation under zero tillage
system and the conventional method was Tk. 66610/ha
and Tk. 41385/ha, respectively, which indicates that
60.9% higher net saving was generated from mungbean
cultivation under zero tillage system. A similar trend of
the result was obtained by Micheni et al. (2015) during
 Zero-till drill for the establishment of mungbean
on-farm experimentation on conservation agriculture in a Conclusion
maize-league cropping system. Furthermore, a higher This research focused on the performance evaluation of
benefit-cost ratio was obtained from the zero-tillage zero-till drill for the establishment of mungbean and
system (BCR = 3.2) than the conventional system (BCR comparing with the conventional method. Zero tillage
=1.6) which indicates that zero tillage system is profitable system showed distinct advantages over the conventional
than the conventional method. This result is following the method which was evaluated based on seed rate, planting
results obtained by Uddin and Dhar (2016). Furthermore, cost, cost of production, yield, total income, net saving
it was also observed that zero tillage system is able to and BCR. Zero tillage system could save 5.5 kg of seed
minimize turn-around time 8-10 days between previous per hector and maintains uniform line to line spacing and
harvesting and mungbean establishment, as the depth of planting. Mungbean yield under zero tillage
conventional method, needs about 10-12 days after system was found 30.4 % higher than the conventional
harvesting of the previous crop for the establishment of method. Besides, mungbean planting cost and production
mungbean. This result is following Hossain et al. (2015) cost under zero tillage system were 65.3% and 20.9% less
who reported that zero tillage farming could minimize the than the conventional method. Also, zero tillage system
average turn-around time 9-10 days between the two increased net saving by 60.9% than the conventional
successive crops. method. Furthermore, a higher benefit-cost ratio was
obtained from the zero-tillage system (BCR = 3.2) than
Table 4. The operational cost of zero-till drill the conventional system (BCR = 1.6) which indicates that
zero tillage system is profitable than the conventional
Parameters Cost (Tk.)
method. Therefore, it can be concluded that mungbean
1. Purchase price 40000 establishment using zero tillage system is better than the
2. Salvage price 4000 conventional method.
3. Fixed cost [(i) + (ii) + (iii)], Tk/hr 25.75
(i) Depreciation 17.15 References
(ii) Interest on investment 7.30 Ansari, M. S., Islam, M. H., Hossain, M. M., Ali, M. R. and Hossain,
1.30 M. I. 2016. Zero-till drill for wheat establishment and
(iii) Shelter cost
comparison of performance with power tiller operated seeder
4. Variable cost [(i) + (ii)], Tk./hr 157.7 (PTOS) and conventional method. Journal of Agricultural
(i) Repair & Maintenance cost 7.7 Machinery and Bioresources Engineering, 7 (1): 55-62.
150 Bashour, A., Ali-Ouda, A., Kassam, A., Bachour, R. Touni, K.,
(ii) Power tiller hiring cost
Hensmann, B. and Estephan, C. 2016. An overview of CA in
5. Total operational cost (No. 3 + No. 4) Tk./hr 182.50 the dry Mediterranean environment with special focus in
6. Effective operating time, hr/ha 8.30 Syria and Lebanon. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 1(1): 67-
1515 84.
7. Operating cost (No. 5 * No. 6), Tk./ha
http://dx.doi.org/10.3934/agrfood.2016.1.67
Derpsch, R., Friedrich, T., Kassam, A. and Li, H. W. 2010. Current
status of adoption of notill farming in the world and some of
Table 5. Economics of operation in Mungbean establishing its main benefits. International Journal of Agricultural and
method Biological Engineering, 3:1-25.
https://doi.org/10.25165/ijabe.v3i1.223
Mungbean Establishing Erenstein, O. and Laxmi, V. 2008. Zero tillage impacts in India’s rice–
Method
Parameters wheat systems: A review. Soil and Tillage Research, 100(1-
Conventional 2):1–14.
Zero-Till Drill
Method https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2008.05.001
Land condition before Hatfield, J. L. and Karlen, D. L. 1992. Sustainable Agriculture Systems.
Un-ploughed Ploughed
planting/seeding CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida, USA.
Land preparation (Tk./ha) - 4400 Hobbs, P. R, Sayre, K. and Gupta, R. 2008. The role of conservation
Seed cost (Tk./ha) @Tk. 100/kg 3000 3550 agriculture on sustainable agriculture. Philosophical
Transections of the Royal Society: Biological Science,
Planting/Seeding cost (Tk./ha) 1515 450
363:543–555 http://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2007.2169
Weeding cost (Tk./ha) 3200 4800 Hossain, M. I., Sarker, M. F. U. and Haque, M. A. 2015. Status of
Fertilizer cost (Tk./ha) 4500 4500 conservation agriculture-based tillage technology for crop
Harvesting & Threshing cost production in Bangladesh. Bangladesh Journal of
8500 8500 Agricultural Research, 40(2):235-248.
(Tk./ha)
https://doi.org/10.3329/bjar.v40i2.24561
Total production cost (Tk./ha) 20715 26200
Hunt, D. 1995. Farm Power and Machinery Management (9 th Edition).
Grain yield (kg/ha) 1247.5 965.5 Iowa State University Press, USA.
Total return (Tk./ha) @ Tk. 70/kg 87325 67585 Iqbal, M. F., Hussain, M., Faisal, N., Iqbal, J., Rehman, A. U., Ahmad,
M. and Padyar, J. A. 2017. Happy seeder zero tillage
Net saving (Tk/ha) 66610 41385
equipment for sowing wheat in standing rice stubbles.
Production cost saving over the International Journal of Advanced Research in Biological
20.9 -
conventional method (%) Sciences, 4(4):101-105.
Benefit cost ratio (BCR) 3.2 1.6 http://dx.doi.org/10.22192/ijarbs.2017.04.04.017

514

Michael, A. M. and Ojha, T. P. 1978. Principle of Agriculture
Engineering (Vol. 1), Jain Brothers, New Delhi.
Micheni, A. N., Kanampiu, F., Kitonyo, O, Mburus, O. M., Mugai, E.
N. Makumbi, d. and Kassie, M. 2015. On-farm
experimentation on conservation agriculture in maize-
legume based cropping system in Kenya: Water use
efficiency and Economic impacts. Experimental Agriculture,
52(1), 51-68. http://doi:10.1017/S0014479714000556
Kahloon, M. H., Iqbal, M. F., Farooq, M., Ali, L. Fiaz, M. and Ahmad,
I. 2012. A comparison of conservation technologies and
traditional techniques for sowing of wheat. Journal of
Animal and Plant Science, 22(3): 827-830.
http://www.thejaps.org.pk/docs/v-22-3/50.pdf
Kepner, R. A., Bainer, R. and Barger, E. L. 1978. Principle of Farm
Machinery (3rd Edition). CBS Publishers & Distributors Pvt.
Ltd, pp. 209-234.
Naresh, R. K., Singh, S. P., Dwivedi, A., Sepat, N. K., Kumar, V.,
Ronaliya, L. K., Kumar, V. and Singh, R. 2013.
Conservation agriculture improving soil quality for
sustainable production systems under smallholder farming
conditions in North West India: A review. International
Journal of Life Sciences Biotechnology and Pharma
Research, 2(4):151-213.
http://www.ijlbpr.com/index.php?m=content&c=index&a=
show&catid=121&id=215
Qaisrani,S., Akbar, A. N., Ullah, E. and Rajtha, A. M. 2014. Cost
analysis on wheat with operational time and fuel ingestion of
different tillage practice in rice-wheat cropping system of
Panjab, Pakistan, Pakistan Journal of Life and Social
Science, 12(2): 114-119.
515
View publication stats
Islam et al.
Sharma, R. K., Chhokar, R. S., Singh, R. K. and Gill, S. C. 2008. Zero
tillage wheat and unpuddled rice: the energy, labour and
cost-efficient alternatives to conventional rice-wheat system.
Proceedings of the 14th Australian Agronomy Conference,
Adelaide, South Australia, pp. 147-158.
Sidhu, H. S., Singh, M. Humphreys, E., Singh, Y., Singh, B., Dhillon,
S. S., Blackwell, J., Bector, V., Singh, M. and Singh, S. 2007.
The Happy Seeder enables direct drilling of wheat into rice
stubble. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture, 47:
844-854.
https://doi.org/10.1071/EA06225
Singh, U. V., Kumar, D. and Moses, S. C. 2016. Performance evaluation
of manually operated paddy drum seeder in puddled field.
ISOR Journal of Agriculture and Veterinary Science, 9(6):
69-83.
https://www.iosrjournals.org/iosr-javs/papers/vol9-
issue6/Version-2/K0906026983.pdf
Uddin, M. S., Amin, A. K. M. R., Ullah, M. J. and Asaduzzaman, M.
2009. Interaction effect of variety and different fertilizers on
the growth and yield of summer mungbean. American-
Eurasian Journal of Agronomy, 2(3):180-184.
https://doi.org/10.1.1.626.7036
Uddin, M. T. and Dhar, A. R. 2016. Conservation agriculture practices
and its impacts on farmer’s livelihood status in Bangladesh.
SAARC Journal of Agriculture, 14(1): 119-140.
https://doi.org/10.3329/sja.v14i1.29582
USDA. 2018. FoodData Central: SR Legacy, Legumes and Legume
Products, FDC ID: 174256, NDB Number:16080.
https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/fdc-app.html#/food-
details/174256/nutrients